Glodis’ role in inmate release at issue

Saturday

Feb 16, 2013 at 6:00 AMFeb 16, 2013 at 1:18 PM

By John J. Monahan TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

Former Sheriff Guy W. Glodis was either an active participant or a passive messenger when it came to getting an inmate out of jail on work release, lawyers argued Friday before the state Ethics Commission.

In June, the Ethics Commission alleged that Mr. Glodis violated two sections of the state conflict of interest law when he was sheriff by allegedly arranging for the placement of an inmate in a work release program, a move allegedly made at the request of Commerce Bank and Trust Chairman David G. “Duddie” Massad.

In closing arguments Friday, the commission’s staff lawyer, Candies Pruitt-Doncaster, said written policies prohibit work release for inmates with criminal cases pending, which applied to inmate Joseph T. Duggan III.

She argued that Mr. Massad, whom she described as “a well-known, well-heeled businessman in Worcester,” had a multimillion-dollar construction project going on in October 2009, for which he needed Mr. Duggan as project manager.

“This project manager was so important to him he had already paid $18,000 in restitution to keep him out of jail,” she said.

“Nevertheless, he was on his way to the Worcester County Jail. But Mr. Massad had a friend. He had a friend with keys to the jail. His friend was Sheriff Guy Glodis,” she said.

Mr. Glodis’ lawyer, Thomas R. Kiley, acknowledged that Mr. Massad had left a telephone message for the sheriff the day before Mr. Duggan was to report for a four-month sentence for larceny in October 2009.

Phone records show Mr. Glodis returned the call shortly afterward, and, as Mr. Massad testified earlier, during that nine-minute conversation he asked the sheriff to help gain work release for Mr. Duggan, allowing him to do construction work at a car dealership in Auburn.

Mr. Kiley insisted, however, that Mr. Glodis only passed the message on to subordinates at the jail and that he told Mr. Massad someone would get back to him about it. He said Mr. Glodis did not make the decision to place Mr. Duggan on work release.

While acknowledging that Mr. Massad did call the sheriff to make the request, Mr. Kiley said, “What happened as a consequence was not established” in evidence presented in the case.

Mr. Glodis testified earlier that he did not remember any conversation with Mr. Massad about Mr. Duggan’s release and that he did not authorize his assignment to work release or ask other jail officials to do so.

Ms. Pruitt-Doncaster, citing testimony in previous hearings from several jail officials who handled the work release classification, said the release was “unusually quick” and that it was approved even though Mr. Duggan had other criminal cases pending before the courts.

“What this case is about is, regardless of who you know, or who you are, the rules should apply to everyone equally. The rules are not just for the people who do not have friends in high places,” Ms. Pruitt-Doncaster told the five-member commission.

She said Mr. Duggan was committed to the jail Oct. 29, 2009. “Twenty-seven hours later, he was back on the streets on work release. This was quick, this was unusually quick. But most importantly, he was not eligible to be placed on work release,” she said. “The rules did not apply to David ‘Duddie’ Massad.”

She asked the commission to bear in mind that Mr. Massad was a longtime political supporter of Mr. Glodis, backing him in his campaigns for state Senate, sheriff and state auditor.

She argued Mr. Glodis violated state ethics laws, “Whether he directly told subordinates to place Mr. Duggan on work release, or whether he indirectly passed on the message with a wink and a nod, knowing he would get preferential treatment, or simply passed on the message without making certain the placement was appropriate.”

Mr. Kiley argued that three jail officials involved in the release testified that Mr. Glodis did not contact them about the release and that they had not made the decision themselves to release him.

He said the case against Mr. Glodis was speculative.

Mr. Kiley said that because state law allows sheriffs to run work release programs and that all inmates except sex offenders can be eligible, “It is impossible to say work release is an unwarranted privilege,” even with the jail’s policy limiting eligibility to those with no other cases pending.

The commission will now determine whether any violations occurred and what penalties, if any, to impose. Mr. Glodis could face up to $10,000 in fines if he is found to have violated state ethics laws.

Mr. Duggan, a former home improvement contractor, was stripped of his construction supervisor licenses by state regulators for repeated misconduct. He was the subject of a series of stories in the Telegram & Gazette in 2009 detailing complaints from customers that he pocketed money intended for building supplies and then walked away from projects, leaving them unfinished.

He had been sentenced to four months in jail for a larceny conviction in one of those cases and had previously served more than four years in federal prison for bank fraud and money laundering.

Mr. Glodis on Friday blamed the newspaper for the case against him. “I’m looking forward to the commission’s decision, but the more I look into the case, the more I realize this is not an issue between Guy Glodis and the state ethics. It’s more of an issue between Guy Glodis and the Telegram & Gazette.”